How Venus ended up with a mini-moon named Zoozve
skyandtelescope.org
skyandtelescope.org
https://twitter.com/latifnasser/status/1750952860131729544
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39151768 (181 points | 16 days ago | 49 comments)
From the Earth's perspective, it follows a horseshoe shape around the sun, with the Earth in the gap of the horseshoe. It's definitely not a moon, but I wonder if it could be considered a pseudo-satelite like Zoozve. They feel similar to me, though in an opposite way.
Edit: according to the Wikipedia link below, it does not follow a horseshoe shape like I originally learned, but more of a kind of bean shape that's varying between just in front of the Earth to half an orbit ahead of the Earth. Not sure where I got the horseshoe description.
I feel if you want to be a great science communicator you can't also insist on using postmodern language which will either confuse or put-off much of your audience.
The word mother is fine but it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth. It's better for their mental health if we use gender affirming language. This is supported by research and the health services of many countries support it.
Dictionaries change every year. I think it's better to consider the health and happiness of the people around you than to be slavish to dictionary definitions.
Apologies for making this political point on Hacker News, I know it's discouraged. Just felt the need to call out the assertion that the language used was "confusing" as I know we're all smart enough here to understand simple words.
It sounds like you have an axe to grind...
> It sounds like you have an axe to grind...
Could you explain what you mean by this?
Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)?
If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans;
since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?
Why?
> If we give advice for "expecting mothers" not to sleep on their backs...
Yes, but
a) you rarely need such differentiation.
b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context.
Because they're fathers, not mothers.
> a) you rarely need such differentiation
How common does it need to be before precise language becomes preferable?
Around one in a 100 couples with children are same sex couples, at least in the US. Acceptance rates of homosexuay vary of course and laws have been lagging behind, so we can expect this number to raise as acceptance grows. Inclusive language is part of that acceptance.
You also have many families with adoptive mothers who didn't give birth to their children.
> b) I'm pretty sure people would understand what is meant from the context
And I'm pretty sure even children can understand the term pregnant person. I'm surprised that so many people here are confused by it
They gave a birth to the child, something only mothers can do.
> You also have many families with adoptive mothers who didn't give birth to their children.
Well that's my point. Using the term "mother" is just fine for them. That doesn't make a necessity to always differentiate by emphasizing that a given woman is "birth mother" / "birth person". In most cases (including LGBT/trans) using the term "mother" is fine and there's no need to go more specific than that.
> And I'm pretty sure even children can understand the term pregnant person. I'm surprised that so many people here are confused by it
It's not confusing, use it, if you wish, but I prefer the term "mother".
What people are annoyed with is the language police, imposing your preferred usage on others. The host being pushed to apologize for using the term "mother" is just absurd.
How many of these couples include a pregnant trans male though? I think the term "pregnant person" would be a hard sell in particular.
Step 1: Take all the western cultural sexist stereotypes that apply to women (female) and men (male).
Step 2: Redefine "woman" and "man" in terms of all these sexist stereotypes, instead of by sex.
Step 3: Anyone who wants to adhere to the sexist stereotypes imposed upon women is now a woman. Anyone who enjoys the sexist stereotypes associated with men is now a man. Invent the term "non-binary" for people who don't want either set of sexist stereotypes to apply to them.
Step 4: Whichever category of sexist stereotyping from Step 3 an individual feels most comfortable with becomes their "gender identity".
Step 5a: Replace sex with "gender identity" in law and policy everywhere. Formerly single-sex spaces and services are no longer separated by sex, but by which set of sexist stereotypes a person feels most comfortable performing. For example, if a male human criminal enjoys wearing dresses and make-up, incarcerate him in the women's prison.
Step 5b: Replace any language that references anyone's sex with a sex-neutral term instead, so that those who enjoy performing sexist stereotypes feel comfortable and unchallenged in their beliefs. For example, replace "expectant mother" (a term implying the female sex) with "pregnant person", just in case a female human who aligns herself with the sexist stereotyping associated with men bears a child.
This IS theoretically a valid solution to the problem, however it requires a massive change in the society as it doesn't reflect how real humans behave here and now anywhere on the planet.
The way I see it, the current solution proposed by the progressives, with treating gender stereotypes as something substantial, is a tiny bit more practical in terms of healthy coexistence (leaving contested topics like sports aside). As to whether it'll be a temporary bandaid solution and the humanity will choose gender abolitionism, I guess we'll see in 500 years.
Social constructs are abstractions, not necessarily based on reality. Feelings do not change facts; nor can facts be changed to fit one's sensibilities.
I asked why "pregnant person" was a confusing term and defended it on the basis of inclusivity. Social constructs are indeed not based on immutable truths, they reflect our beliefs and feelings. It seems reasonable to me to consider the beliefs and feelings of others when perpetuating social norms. Mother is an ambiguous term when we're talking about child bearers. Not everyone who bears a child is a mother and not every mother bears children.
Do you consider trans-men to be male or female?:
female /ˈfiːmeɪl/ adjective
Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
I've already said I'm not interested in the dictionary. That's what the word female means in the simple definition, yes, but reality is more complicated. Some women are born without ovaries, or they later have them removed. What sex would you assign to them?
I'm not asking about other labels (man, woman, mother etc). I'm asking if a trans-man can correctly be described as "female".
Saying they have "female reproductive organs" i.e. those of a female, implies they are not female, yet the definition of a female is basically "has (female) reproductive organs", so it feels like redundant semantics / wordplay.
It's like being asked "is this a red bucket" and saying "No, its a bucket thats colour is red". If you aren't being deliberately obtuse then there some conflicting root of understanding you aren't just stating outright.
> I'm not interested in the dictionary.. reality is more complicated
word are convention of meaning. other than researching common usage, that's all they are. There is no a priori "true meaning" of a word beyond their definition, whether found in a dictionary, or elsewhere.
Does rejecting the "dictionary" mean you disagree with the definition I supplied; that you have your own alternative definition; or you don't care much about what word means (but do, nonetheless, care how it's used)?
> Some women are born without ovaries
Some women have ovaries removed, others don't yet never become pregnant. Conventionally they are still referred to as female.
The word "can" in the definition implies "capability", which allows a certain level of ambiguity in definition. They belong to a biologically class capable of, and distinguished by, reproduction. Perhaps there is a grey-area in how this definition is applied, but that aside: how does that affect a conversation of whether "pregnant people" are female? We bypass the issue of "who doesn't meet the condition(s)" entirely by presenting a group that absolutely meet the condition(s), without ambiguity.
> What sex would you assign to them?
This begs the question that all individuals have a unambiguous sex.
Rejecting the dictionary means recognising that dictionaries are made to reflect language as it is used, rather than as a handbook for relating to other people. As descriptive texts they will always lag behind use in practice and, as I said above, I see no reason to insist on certain harmful terminologies on the basis of a dictionary definition. I call them harmful terminologies because of the medical recognition of the distress that can be caused by misgendering individuals.
You recognise yourself that sex has many gray areas. Human life has many gray areas. The more we move towards a society where people are free to express their feelings the more people we see who have been unhappy with their prescribed gender identity. I feel morally obliged to be kind to the people around me and, as someone living in a community and society alongside trans and non-binary individuals, as well as same sex couples, I prefer to make the trivial change in my language that helps them feel included and happy in their own bodies. I can't see any reason why I wouldn't do this, but if others can then they're free to speak as they want.
Pregnant person is a very clear term in my mind.
So, does the word "female" prescribe gender? or not?
Or is the idea that some such definitions might exist, and therefore such words are to be avoided?
On that basis, there are 14 meanings for "pregnant", so how does this not have the same problem?
> If the word red had 24 such distinct meanings
Are the meanings for "female" all distinct?
> As descriptive texts they will always lag behind use in practice
ok, so you are talking about common usage? What else can it "lag behind"?
If you have a point to make then I would rather you simply state it and stand by it. As it is it feels like you're trying to bait me into admitting a fault in my own reasoning using a series of first principle questions. If you see a problem with my logic then please come forward with it, I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in your socratic dialogue.
Generally, if it ends with a '?' it's a question. Try answering those, and maybe you'll get the point.
e.g. "So, does the word "female" prescribe gender? or not?"
Why did you choose not to answer that and instead claim you "no longer sure what you're asking"? I'm asking if the word prescribes gender, it's pretty clear!
I also don't have the time or energy - I asked the questions straight, and if I break-down the questions further it's because you didn't answer them in the first place.
> If you see a problem with my logic then please come forward with it
Here's what I wrote, then re-iterated:
>> since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?
>> On that basis, there are 14 meanings for "pregnant", so how does this not have the same problem?
I'll "simply state it": read what I wrote and respond to it rather than "anticipating" my point and waffling on about something else.
I don't even know what prompted the "Human life has many gray areas" paragraph, it feels like you are responding to something else.
The following definitely needs citation:
"In my country trans men are medically recognised as distinct"
So, when I’m at a conference and someone gives a talk on how live birth leads to microbiota transfer from mother to child, it’s clear who we talk about when we say “mother”. I’m not sure there’s a case for fighting for someone’s mental health here.
Lesbian couples can become pregnant through co-parenting arrangements, sperm donation and sexual assault.
You selected a definition that aligns with your worldview and make it sound like an unimpeachable, universal truth.
People can be whatever they want, have my blessing. It’s just the whole “pregnant person” vs “mother” debate started from the scientific podcast. Mixing identity politics and biological phenomena seems a bit excessive. Nobody is trying to offend anyone when they write a Nature paper and use the world “mother”. I don’t think that the attitude of getting triggered by words is a constructive one.
A quasi-moon is a relatively lightweight object which shares an orbit with a host planet, but doesn't (noticeably) disturb the orbit of that host planet.